KAYYUMMA AND ORS. Vs. K.P. MOHAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the tenants in R.C.P. No. 48 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Koyilandy, a petition filed by the respondent -landlord for an order evicting the tenants under Ss. 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. The landlord had in the petition for eviction averred that the tenants have paid rent at the rate of Rs. 210/ - per mensem only for the period upto and inclusive of August, 2000 and that they kept the rent in arrears thereafter. He had also averred that he and his wife have no job or other sources of income and that he intends to start a ready made and tailoring business in the petition schedule building along with his wife. On that averment, he prayed for an order of eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act. He had further averred that the tenants have come by possession of a building reasonably sufficient for their requirement in the same town and therefore, they are liable to be evicted under Sec. 11(4)(iii) of the Act.

(2.) Upon receipt of the notice, the tenants entered appearance and filed a counter statement contending that rent upto and inclusive of July, 2012 has been paid. They also denied and disputed the averment in the rent control petition that the landlord bonafide needs the petition schedule building to start a business of his own. It was contended that the landlord has several other sources of income and properties and that he has other rooms in his possession which have been let out on rent. The tenants also claimed the protection of the second proviso to Sec. 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) Before the rent control court, the landlord examined himself as PW1 and produced and marked Exts.A1 to A3 series. On the side of the tenants, the husband of the second petitioner herein (the second respondent before the rent control court) was examined as RW1. The tenants also produced and marked Exts. B1 to B3. The rent control court considered the rival contentions and held that the tenants have kept the rent in arrears. The rent control court also held that the need put forward by the landlord is bonafide. The rent control court however repelled the contention of the landlord that the tenants have come by possession of another building in the same locality. The contention of the tenants that they are depending for their livelihood, mainly on the income derived from the business carried on by them in the petition schedule building as also their contention that no other suitable building is available in the locality were repelled. Consequently, an order of eviction under Ss. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act was passed directing the tenants to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlord within one month. Challenging that order, the tenants filed R.C.A. No. 76 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. By judgment delivered on 15.7.2015, the rent control appellate authority concurred with the rent control court and dismissed the appeal. The tenants have aggrieved thereby filed this revision petition under Sec. 20 of the Act.